IBC

So I think according to our rules we have to revoke this signing. Also might not hurt to add a sentence to actually make something like this legal but until then I believe it's not.

Rangers wrote:So I think according to our rules we have to revoke this signing. Also might not hurt to add a sentence to actually make something like this legal but until then I believe it's not.

I agree with Brett ... while I enjoyed the commentary affiliated with this signing, Tebow is clearly only eligible to be signed as a draftee in the upcoming draft - or a FA after that.

I hadn't really thought about it and we probably should have a while ago. After reviewing the rules and given that he was almost but never previously drafted, I think I have to agree. A tiny part of me feels like the fact that it took us a month to realize it maybe could provide some sort of grandfathering, but that sets a bad precedent. I just hate that a team wasted a roster spot for a month on us. But, ultimately, agree he needs to be drafted or signed as a f/a post-draft.

Sorry, happened while I was out of the country so I never even saw it.

Tigers wrote: I just hate that a team wasted a roster spot for a month on us.

Look at who signed him ... Bren knows the rules and was just messing with us.

WhiteSox wrote:

Tigers wrote: I just hate that a team wasted a roster spot for a month on us.

Look at who signed him ... Bren knows the rules and was just messing with us.

Haha. Maybe. And, yes, I don't have a ton of sympathy for Bren. But still. And BP, it's not on you to police. We all missed it.

Agreed based on 'Players subject to the draft will include any amateur player who has been signed by an MLB organization during the prior calendar year.' clause.